|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Colin RosenstielColin Rosenstiel Date: Oct 11, 2006 15:12
In article <5cuni2hu4ios5kqe0i74voc3rd99jtba9l@ 4ax.com>,
invalid@invalid.invalid (asdf) wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2006 12:01:17 -0700, TheOneKEA wrote:
>
>>> There are a couple of points here (happy to be corrected if my
>>> facts aren't quite right). The NLL that exists now was two separate
>>> services back in the late 70s. It was diesel operated out at North
>>> Woolwich and through Hackney IIRC. You only got the third rail bit
>>> at Dalston.
>>
>>The two services were Broad Street to Richmond and Palace Gates to
>>North Woolwich.
>
> IIRC the Palace Gates branch closed in the 60s. Paul C is referring
> to the situation in the years leading up to the closure of Broad
> Street, when IIRC there were electric services from Richmond to Broad
> Street and Watford to Broad Street, and diesel services from North
> Woolwich to Camden Road.
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Colin RosenstielColin Rosenstiel Date: Oct 11, 2006 15:12
In article ,
twic@urchin.earth.li (Tom Anderson) wrote:
>> I think it'd be far preferable to get as much rail freight
> traffic as possible on routes that avoid going through London.
>
> Not only preferable, but absolutely necessary. There's a Felixstowe
> - Nuneaton (IIRC) route that is the great white hope here; it needs
> various bits of fiddling about, but would allow Felixstowe's
> traffic to the north, which is rather substantial, to bypass London
> completely.
I is *not* that simple. The Felixstowe - Nuneaton route is not
electrified and has significant capacity constraints for which there are
no enhancement proposals. The single track section from Soham to Ely
limits capacity and would not easily be doubled. Manton tunnel will be
an interesting W10 gauge challenge. Then there is how all this container
traffic is supposed to get through bottlenecks at Peterborough and
Leicester. Crossing two of the busiest North-South main lines on the
flat is not a recipe for reliability.
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: TheOneKEATheOneKEA Date: Oct 8, 2006 12:01
The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for four
tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require two of
these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation will be
used for?
For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
|
| |
| 81 Comments |
|
|
Author: Colin RosenstielColin Rosenstiel Date: Oct 8, 2006 13:35
> The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for
> four tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require
> two of these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation
> will be used for?
>
> For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
> smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
> formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up
> significantly, a set of outside loops can be built at the stations and
> new platforms added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
It's two parallel double track viaducts though, isn't it? With space for
station platforms as islands on each viaduct?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: TheOneKEATheOneKEA Date: Oct 8, 2006 15:37
On Oct 8, 9:35 pm, rosenst...@ cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: > It's two parallel double track viaducts though, isn't it? With space for
> station platforms as islands on each viaduct?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BobBob Date: Oct 9, 2006 03:16
TheOneKEA wrote:
> The old route out of Broad Street to Dalston Junction is built for four
> tracks throughout. Given that the ELLX is likely to only require two of
> these tracks, does anyone know what the remaining formation will be
> used for?
>
> For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
> smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
> formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
> set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
> added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
Won't it depend on the width of the replacement bridge decks being put
in place?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: KevKev Date: Oct 9, 2006 03:54
TheOneKEA wrote:
> For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
> smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
> formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
> set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
> added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
the double track bottleneck to the south.
Kevin
|
| |
| 68 Comments |
|
|
Author: TheOneKEATheOneKEA Date: Oct 9, 2006 07:56
On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" mwfree.net> wrote:> TheOneKEA wrote:
>> For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
>> smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
>> formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
>> set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
>> added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
>
> Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
> Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
> the double track bottleneck to the south.
True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
north.
A bit of research shows that the Dalston area once enjoyed a triangular
junction with the NLL. If the four-track formation is cleared and kept
clear as far as Dalston Junction, then as long as the eastern side of
the triangle is not blocked, the ELLX could run onto the eastern NLL
and access some of the old Eastern Region suburban routes.
|
| |
| 67 Comments |
|
|
Author: Mizter TMizter T Date: Oct 9, 2006 10:29
TheOneKEA wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:54 am, "Kev" mwfree.net> wrote:>> TheOneKEA wrote:
>>> For that matter, how will the tracks themselves be positioned? One
>>> smart thing to do would be to run them down the centre of the
>>> formation, so that in case patronage begins to pick up significantly, a
>>> set of outside loops can be built at the stations and new platforms
>>> added, to permit non-stopping of trains.
>>
>> Funniest thing that I have read in ages, the prospect of the Eat London
>> Line being so busy it will need to be quadrupled. You would still have
>> the double track bottleneck to the south.
>
> True. I was thinking more in terms of offering branched services to the
> north.
It certainly won't need quadrupling - as Kev says it would be a
nightmare anyway as there'd be a bottleneck.
|
| Show full article (1.76Kb) |
| 29 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: KevKev Date: Oct 10, 2006 01:04
Mizter T wrote:
> If however the suggestion is the ELL is going to be a quiet line then
> I'd offer the contrary prediction - I think it'll be a very successful
> and well patronised line. I know this is contrary to what...
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
| 20 Comments |
|
|
|
|
